However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves. So why force them against their will?
Additionally if it was optional people would forget to do it more often even if they don't consciously choose to risk their lives for no reason.
BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids.
If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life. Though I grant that jumping off a bridge is inconsiderate.
> BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids.
So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?
If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
This pales in comparison to the projectile that your care already is.
In any case, just work out the expected level of danger, convert to monetary units, and tax people who don't wear seatbelts.
> If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
Tax non-seatbelt-wearers ahead of time. Or make sure everyone has insurance, get the money from the insurance, and beancounters at the insurace will make sure premiums go up for non-seatbelt-wearers. (And use the full force of the law against people without insurance. Or have some clever mechanism design, like selling default insurance with petrol, but give people with proven insurance a discount on that, etc.)
If they sell the vehicle, the decision was already made for the new owner (nobody would buy separate aftermarket seatbelts for a used car). So no, they also endanger other people. Mandating them outright is the right decision.
> (nobody would buy separate aftermarket seatbelts for a used car)
I would assume most people who want seatbelts in the first place would buy a car that comes with seatbelts, even when buying a used car.
